As for the money target (75k$) think that the first DS album cost 12,500pounds, 40 years ago. If you do the math, you realise it is logical.
You compare 1970s costs with now however the music industry has changed massively since that time. Artists now may boast of Number 1 records but to reach that pinnacle is significantly easier than a decade or so ago. Record sales are largely down, and self made and self funded records are the way forward - do it yourself, release it yourself and cut the middle man out. There are lots of new artists doing that - I buy their material. Most have day time jobs and manage, with small scale tours in support. Large scale arena and stadium acts are dying out, as are massively expensive albums. Albums rarely make money back - people but tracks on itunes they like, or more likely rip them off the internet for nothing.
If he wants to do this and gets the funding then best of luck to him. However, as others have said, albums can be made with significantly less expenditure. Same goes for session musicians - there's no Hendrix-esque solos screaming out from his albums that may necessitate hiring in musical gurus so the extra expense for more "name" artists seems rather a waste. He should offer them a % cut of the profits in exchange for them doing it free......that would give an indication as to everyone's faith in the material to turn a profit in these evolving musical times.
As I say, best of luck to him but earning £75k from sales just to break even would seem to me to be quite ambitious for him.
To be fair I also believe in self made-self produced and self distributed records, being the way of the future, but on the other hand, this is more or less what David is doing. The only thing that seems to be troubling most people here, is the 75k$. I am not doing this to defend my original statement, because each of us can put more weight in different factors. After all it is nice to talk about things we like! And pre-selling your record raising the money from the fans is the best way to go! Radiohead did a similar thing with In Rainbows and King of limbs but they were Radiohead after all!
So, 75k$ is a rough estimate really, he will work with what he will raise, either way. And of course more than half of your arguments can work both ways. They don't buy records-they have to fund in different ways. Number 1 records may be easier, but that exactly means fewer sales, less money. And for artists such as David, it is hardly the case, even though it would be nice to have a no1, even with today's fewer sales. The extra musicians- special studios etc have to be paid in advance, because they don't believe in sales, even for successful artists. Studios can offer much better quality than home studios, especially for bigger things. Not all things can be recorded in home-computer studios. Some times "live" studio recordings with many musicians or an orchestra, demand sparse places that a home studio can not provide. Money can give you a sense of security and help you take the extra step, that makes the difference between a solid song and a masterpiece. And a good producer can help a lot. George Martin was considered from many as the fifth Beatle. Think about British Grove a bit. MK could have recorded some of his blues songs in a home studio, to gain from the lo-fi. Blues songs with a rough edge add to the general experience that blues usually convey. Of course MK owns BG, so it is no cost for him to record there, but the attention and detail he gives even to simpler songs, means a lot. Do you know the price per hour for use of the studio? 100 pounds per hour with minimum of two hours, or 299 pounds for 6 hours /in one day. So if the work is to be recorded in 30 days, this is 9000 pounds, only for recording, not mixing, mastering, production fees, musician fees, cover art, CD production, distribution cost, advertisements etc.
http://recordproduction.smugmug.com/Music/Recording-Studios/British-Grove-Studios/ I like the rough rock sound, but some things demand bigger productions and a fine producer. Even the first DS album had a proper producer, that got a percentage (foolishly he didn't think much of the album so he lost most of his production pay from American sales!) And many punk groups had a proper producer, amongst them the Clash and the Damned. To push it a bit further, Bob Ezrin and Todd Rundgren were not famous just because of luck. They added greatly to what they touched. And the matter of money solved many of the problems and helped them fulfill their vision that we still enjoy 40 years on. These people also do get paid in advance nowadays. And only the results will prove if the money were well spent. The fact that we imagine what it would be like, or how it could be made, or if deserves 75k$ to be made, is only nice for our discussion, but we are not in David's shoes.
Left for last, is the fact, that you correctly mention, that expensive albums are really hard to do nowadays. Big productions that have to be pre-paid are almost out of the question. But they are done, even for acts that are not in the super league. (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow_%28band%29 They just made no.1 after 20 years! And their orchestra triumph was 7 years ago!) But, with the technology at hand most of the things that used to cost a lot of money, are at hands reach, for no money at all, or just for copyright. No need to bring in musicians from around the world. Send the track and they will add their piece. No need to invent special FX. They are all there to use and combine. Only thing that seems missing lately is good old inspiration!
